Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
If she thinks it's fine for any public servant to walk out with hundreds upon hundreds of our country's most sensitive national security documents which are NOT Presidential records, which are documents that do not belong to him, but which belong to the government, and to conceal them, lie about them, to obstruct any investigation into them, to enlist others to lie about them - she is unfit to serve in government and is unfit to hold a military commission.
Presidential records? That has nothing to do with it.
![]()
![]()
U.S. Constitution - Article 2, Section 2.
Article 2 Section 2 has nothing to do with it either. NOWHERE in the Constitution does it confer any right for the President to take government assets
By your bizarre reading, Trump could have flown Air Force One to Florida and declared it to be his own personal property. He is not entitled to it, just as he is not entitled to take official agency documents, particularly some of the most sensitive ones in US government. The only things he was entitled to take were his own personal notes, his own personal correspondence and other personal items.
Wrong. As head of the executive branch, he had the authority to do exactly what he did.
Actually he was a fired employee. You aren’t allowed to take company property when you leave. Period.
I’ll just leave this right here as an example of the stupidity of leftists
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
If she thinks it's fine for any public servant to walk out with hundreds upon hundreds of our country's most sensitive national security documents which are NOT Presidential records, which are documents that do not belong to him, but which belong to the government, and to conceal them, lie about them, to obstruct any investigation into them, to enlist others to lie about them - she is unfit to serve in government and is unfit to hold a military commission.
Presidential records? That has nothing to do with it.
![]()
![]()
U.S. Constitution - Article 2, Section 2.
Article 2 Section 2 has nothing to do with it either. NOWHERE in the Constitution does it confer any right for the President to take government assets
By your bizarre reading, Trump could have flown Air Force One to Florida and declared it to be his own personal property. He is not entitled to it, just as he is not entitled to take official agency documents, particularly some of the most sensitive ones in US government. The only things he was entitled to take were his own personal notes, his own personal correspondence and other personal items.
Wrong. As head of the executive branch, he had the authority to do exactly what he did.
Actually he was a fired employee. You aren’t allowed to take company property when you leave. Period.
I’ll just leave this right here as an example of the stupidity of leftists
Anonymous wrote:
LOLOLOL
"Trump might not have known these documents were not his personal records, so therefore he's not guilty." Well dude, you just made a case for not re-electing someone so dumb.
Come on folks. All your arguments for why Trump isn't guilty are foundational arguments for why he should never step foot in the Oval office again. You're making it too easy for Dems!
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
Good for him, he can be another in a long line of clowns to serve as Missouri's Attorney General.
No, clown, the PRA does NOT allow the President to decide that records having to do with national defense and security are "personal records."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=44-USC-2035507102-1726767310&term_occur=999&term_src=title:44:chapter:22:section:2203
The term “personal records” means all documentary materials, or any reasonably segregable portion therof, of a purely private or nonpublic character which do not relate to or have an effect upon the carrying out of the constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President.
+1
Every time these idiots cite the Presidential Records Act, it is a tell, because the indictment never cites the PRA but rather the Espionage Act. This is one of those "no collusion" half truths the GOP is so good at using.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
If she thinks it's fine for any public servant to walk out with hundreds upon hundreds of our country's most sensitive national security documents which are NOT Presidential records, which are documents that do not belong to him, but which belong to the government, and to conceal them, lie about them, to obstruct any investigation into them, to enlist others to lie about them - she is unfit to serve in government and is unfit to hold a military commission.
Presidential records? That has nothing to do with it.
![]()
![]()
U.S. Constitution - Article 2, Section 2.
Article 2 Section 2 has nothing to do with it either. NOWHERE in the Constitution does it confer any right for the President to take government assets
By your bizarre reading, Trump could have flown Air Force One to Florida and declared it to be his own personal property. He is not entitled to it, just as he is not entitled to take official agency documents, particularly some of the most sensitive ones in US government. The only things he was entitled to take were his own personal notes, his own personal correspondence and other personal items.
Wrong. As head of the executive branch, he had the authority to do exactly what he did.
Actually he was a fired employee. You aren’t allowed to take company property when you leave. Period.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
Good for him, he can be another in a long line of clowns to serve as Missouri's Attorney General.
No, clown, the PRA does NOT allow the President to decide that records having to do with national defense and security are "personal records."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=44-USC-2035507102-1726767310&term_occur=999&term_src=title:44:chapter:22:section:2203
The term “personal records” means all documentary materials, or any reasonably segregable portion therof, of a purely private or nonpublic character which do not relate to or have an effect upon the carrying out of the constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President.
+1
Every time these idiots cite the Presidential Records Act, it is a tell, because the indictment never cites the PRA but rather the Espionage Act. This is one of those "no collusion" half truths the GOP is so good at using.
Anonymous wrote:
Good for him, he can be another in a long line of clowns to serve as Missouri's Attorney General.
No, clown, the PRA does NOT allow the President to decide that records having to do with national defense and security are "personal records."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=44-USC-2035507102-1726767310&term_occur=999&term_src=title:44:chapter:22:section:2203
The term “personal records” means all documentary materials, or any reasonably segregable portion therof, of a purely private or nonpublic character which do not relate to or have an effect upon the carrying out of the constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
If she thinks it's fine for any public servant to walk out with hundreds upon hundreds of our country's most sensitive national security documents which are NOT Presidential records, which are documents that do not belong to him, but which belong to the government, and to conceal them, lie about them, to obstruct any investigation into them, to enlist others to lie about them - she is unfit to serve in government and is unfit to hold a military commission.
Presidential records? That has nothing to do with it.
U.S. Constitution - Article 2, Section 2.
Article 2 Section 2 has nothing to do with it either. NOWHERE in the Constitution does it confer any right for the President to take government assets
By your bizarre reading, Trump could have flown Air Force One to Florida and declared it to be his own personal property. He is not entitled to it, just as he is not entitled to take official agency documents, particularly some of the most sensitive ones in US government. The only things he was entitled to take were his own personal notes, his own personal correspondence and other personal items.
Wrong. As head of the executive branch, he had the authority to do exactly what he did.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
If she thinks it's fine for any public servant to walk out with hundreds upon hundreds of our country's most sensitive national security documents which are NOT Presidential records, which are documents that do not belong to him, but which belong to the government, and to conceal them, lie about them, to obstruct any investigation into them, to enlist others to lie about them - she is unfit to serve in government and is unfit to hold a military commission.
Presidential records? That has nothing to do with it.
U.S. Constitution - Article 2, Section 2.
Article 2 Section 2 has nothing to do with it either. NOWHERE in the Constitution does it confer any right for the President to take government assets
By your bizarre reading, Trump could have flown Air Force One to Florida and declared it to be his own personal property. He is not entitled to it, just as he is not entitled to take official agency documents, particularly some of the most sensitive ones in US government. The only things he was entitled to take were his own personal notes, his own personal correspondence and other personal items.
Wrong. As head of the executive branch, he had the authority to do exactly what he did.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
If she thinks it's fine for any public servant to walk out with hundreds upon hundreds of our country's most sensitive national security documents which are NOT Presidential records, which are documents that do not belong to him, but which belong to the government, and to conceal them, lie about them, to obstruct any investigation into them, to enlist others to lie about them - she is unfit to serve in government and is unfit to hold a military commission.
Presidential records? That has nothing to do with it.
U.S. Constitution - Article 2, Section 2.
Article 2 Section 2 has nothing to do with it either. NOWHERE in the Constitution does it confer any right for the President to take government assets
By your bizarre reading, Trump could have flown Air Force One to Florida and declared it to be his own personal property. He is not entitled to it, just as he is not entitled to take official agency documents, particularly some of the most sensitive ones in US government. The only things he was entitled to take were his own personal notes, his own personal correspondence and other personal items.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
If she thinks it's fine for any public servant to walk out with hundreds upon hundreds of our country's most sensitive national security documents which are NOT Presidential records, which are documents that do not belong to him, but which belong to the government, and to conceal them, lie about them, to obstruct any investigation into them, to enlist others to lie about them - she is unfit to serve in government and is unfit to hold a military commission.
Presidential records? That has nothing to do with it.
U.S. Constitution - Article 2, Section 2.